On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 12:14:55PM -0400, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> Note also that strictly speaking, we're not even compliant with the
> System V behaviour on read() and write(). See:
>
> http://www.unix.org.ua/orelly/networking_2ndEd/nfs/ch11_01.htm
> and
> http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/801-6736/6i13fom0a?l=en&a=view&q=mandatory+lock
>
> According to these docs, we should be wrapping each and every read() and
> write() syscall with a mandatory lock. The fact that we're not, and yet
> still not seeing any complaints just goes to show how few people are
> actually using and relying on this...
So currently there's nothing to prevent this:
- write passes locks_mandatory_area() checks
- get mandatory lock
- read old data
- write updates file data
- read new data
You can see the data change even while you hold a mandatory lock that
should exclude writes.
Similarly you might think that an application could prevent anyone from
seeing the intermediate state of a file while it performs a series of
writes under an exclusive mandatory lock, but actually there's nothing
to stop a read in progress from racing with acquisition of the lock.
Unless I'm missing something, that makes our mandatory lock
implementation pretty pointless. I wish we could either fix it or just
ditch it, but I suppose either option would be unpopular.
--b.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
